49 comments:

Assuming that Ron Paul is actually opposed to all the racist homophobic bigoted stuff in his newsletters, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not reading what was in the newsletters but not a single person thought to ask him about what was going on in the newsletters?

"Assuming that Ron Paul is actually opposed to all the racist homophobic bigoted stuff in his newsletters, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not reading what was in the newsletters but not a single person thought to ask him about what was going on in the newsletters?"

Let's be fair. I think he made a lot of money on those newsletters. That's a completely separate motivation for publishing that stuff. Do you think everyone who publishes porn loves exaggerated, promiscuous sex?

Assuming that Barack Obama is actually opposed to all the racist bigoted stuff shouted by Jeremiah Wright, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not listening to the voice form the pulpit, but not a single person thought to ask him about what the pastor of his church of 20 years was saying?

Is it possible Ron Paul's attitude toward his newsletter was similar to a blogger's attitude toward his publication?

If so the opinions expressed by the contributors might not reflect Paul's stance on those issues. Who knows? Not me.

askewhatguy wrote:[W]e are supposed to believe that not only was he not reading what was in the newsletters but not a single person thought to ask him about what was going on in the newsletters?

Of course we are not to believe this, else the guilt by association meme would fall on its face. BTW, guilt by association and racism by proxy only work against conservatives. That's why Obama is POTUS and not just another anonymous racist member of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's congregation.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. I consider him a crank. But I don't approve of character assassination in any case. What I want to know is why this newsletter wasn't a campaign issue 20 years ago.

No idea if Ron Paul is a racist, but his "newsletters" certainly are. And it would be nuts for Romney and the others not to completely discredit Ron Paul here. Paul's explanations for the newsletters are awful. He just keeps digging a hole. The Republicans should do whatever they can to make sure that Ron Paul is finished so that if he decides to mount a third-party run, he will receive less than 1% of the vote. The next step will be for Republicans to start tarring Paul's supporters as racists and put them on the defensive. Their goal should be to limit Ron Paul's support to the actual losers who subscribed to his newsletters.

Assuming that Barack Obama is actually opposed to all the racist bigoted stuff shouted by Jeremiah Wright, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not listening to the voice form the pulpit, but not a single person thought to ask him about what the pastor of his church of 20 years was saying?

Whose chickens-come-home-to-roost view of American foreign policy would be most welcome in Jeremiah Wright's church? Hint: it's not Obama's.

Ron Paul doesn't appear to be a racist in any meaningful way by which I mean willing to use the power of the state to discriminate against people on the basis of race. He may be racist in his desire to keep the state out of the business of redressing past injustices but that is hardly a novel position.

"Of course we are not to believe this, else the guilt by association meme would fall on its face. "

These were newsletters put out by Ron Paul, under his name. That isnt guilt by association.

"What I want to know is why this newsletter wasn't a campaign issue 20 years ago."

They've been a issue since the day the first one came out. Are you asking why the media didnt report it in this quantity on a person on the fringe until he became a front runner in the Republican primary? Really?

Let's be fair. I think he made a lot of money on those newsletters. That's a completely separate motivation for publishing that stuff. Do you think everyone who publishes porn loves exaggerated, promiscuous sex?

Politicians assume responsibility for what they pander to in a way that figures who lack that degree of public accountability do not. Integrity goes to the character of the elected official.

Once we can vote publishers and producers in and out of office (a direction in which FOX seems to want to head), then we can expect of them what we expect of government officials.

Believe what you will, but I've got to figure that if Paul's rogue contributors had instead been calling for red revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, he would have managed to find out somehow and put a stop to it.

I wasn't aware standing on Bible teaching about homosexuality constituted racism, but, if it's convenient, the Lefties can turn anything into racism.

Those are multiple adjectives describing multiple things. Some of what he has written is racist, some is homophobic, and some is bigoted, but in a way that isn't racist or homophobic. Like if I said Clifford is a big red dog.

(The Crypto Jew) I dunno, maybe stuff like this. No way anyone could possibly misinterpret something like that, right? Nothing racially demeaning about that

You realize:1) The “Magic Negro” is a Hollywood term, right?2) The Article discussing Obama as the “Magic Negro” was written by a BLACK dood, for the LAT, right?3) So that when Limbaugh spoofs the idea of the “Magic Negro” he’s making fun of White People, right?Something you might work on Ritmo is understanding.

Yep, that's why all those subtle and oh-so-mitigating nuances were omitted from the song, Joe.

It also helps explain why the guy who distributed it was canned from his RNC chairmanship bid and replaced by Michael Steele.

When posting on a forum that discourages "bad faith" comments, it's probably not a good idea to defend attempts by Republicans to engage doublespeak by putting out an offensive message with a crucial and subtly less offensive backstory, that none of those involved, incidentally, cared to emphasize.

If he's not a racist, he's certainly a dumbass. It's not like he's marginally associated with the stuff in his newsletter--it's got his name right on the title.

Obama was a dumbass to go to a black liberation theology church, but at least he could say he didn't agree with everything said there. Would have been much harder if he went to the "Barack Obama Church of Hate the Whiteys."

As for whether Paul is actually a racist or not... it's kind of moot. No one can know for certain what goes on in a person's brain. But the newsletter itself is troubling enough IMO.

As for Althouse's claim that maybe it's not so bad because maybe he was just in it for the money-- does that really make it any better? "Hey guys, I'm not really a racist... I just published that so I could make a buck." Yeah, that really makes me think Paul is a-ok. Not.

Ron Paul never focused on being or on not being a racist. He had much bigger fish to fry.

Paul was one of the main John Birch Society poisoner of men's minds. Black, white or yellow skin was never his concern. Paul wanted to control all men's minds with his cult powers... just to prove that he could do it.

It's always somewhat amusing when a lifelong Republican politician rails against the govtBut it's always tiresome when a Democrat conflates a desire for a less powerful & costly government with a desire for no government. That all you got?

Reagan/Bush/Bush increased America's debt by $14,198,057,303,103.50 which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of 93.82% of the entire national debt in only 8.5106% of the 235 years of the existence of the United States of America.

Ann Althouse said... Can we all just agree that with the Ron PAul Letter in his background, Ron Paul is not a fit candidate for the GOP?

It's pretty simple.

He's not the best person to present his views, but he is the only candidate of either party who understands the extent of the financial mess we're in, and who actually believes in small constitutional limited government, a modest foreign policy focused on defense, not empire, and freedom and liberty for individuals.

As the only candidate who believes these things, and the only one likely to govern based upon these beliefs, he is the only candidate fit to be President.

Ann shows that despite her admittedly brilliant intellect, and her obvious gifts, she is a "typical white woman," (as the Zero might say) devoid of wisdom.

You seem to be mistaking libertarians for anarchists. Government itself isn't evil, but if unchecked it can visit all kinds of evil on its people. I don't know of any libertarian who doesn't want an army or police or sewer maintenance.